By Joel Warner
By Michael Roberts
By Alan Prendergast
By Michael Roberts
By Michael Roberts
By Amber Taufen
By Patricia Calhoun
By William Breathes
To Millie Horn's family, however, it seemed that the case was moving too slowly. Six months after the murders, Millie's sister, Vivian Rice, filed a civil suit against Lawrence Horn to keep him from claiming Trevor's estate. Citing Maryland's "slayer rule," Rice alleged that Lawrence Horn was responsible for the deaths of Millie and Trevor and therefore was not entitled to the money.
Still the case dragged on. Finally, in July 1994--after investigators had obtained phone records and wiretaps tracking upwards of 140 phone calls between Perry and Lawrence Horn--the two men were arrested and charged with identical counts of triple murder and conspiracy. (Perry did not respond to requests for an interview; Horn's attorney declined to allow his client to speak with Westword.)
At Perry's trial in October 1995, investigators took the stand and testified that they were able to place Perry in Maryland three or more times between the summer of 1992, when he met Lawrence Horn, and March 1993, when the murders were committed. Prosecutors suggested the visits were to scout out Millie Horn's house, an action that Feral recommends in Hit Man.
Detectives also produced evidence showing that prior to the murders, Perry had received $5,000 to $6,000 in cash that had been wired to him from an office near Lawrence Horn's home. That money, Wittenberg says, was probably for expenses only. "What [Horn] promised to pay Perry, we don't know," he says. "I'm sure neither one of them is going to come forward and tell us that." (HiR>t Man suggests that $30,000 is a fair price--more if the intended victim is a law enforcement officer or a judge.)
Thomas Turner, who was granted immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony, said at trial that he'd rented a car for Perry, which Perry then used to drive from Detroit to Maryland to carry out the murders.
But it was Hit Man that proved crucial to the case. "It helped tie James Perry to the murders and established a sequence of events suggested in the book," says prosecutor Robert Dean. "Along with other evidence, it clearly indicated that someone who read the book committed these crimes."
In closing arguments, prosecutors showed the jury a chart they'd made listing 22 steps taken directly from Hit Man. Perry had followed all of them in carrying out the murders. "I'm sure," Dean says, "we could have come up with more."
The jury took five hours to render a guilty verdict against Perry. And it took only four hours to determine that he should die for his crimes.
Horn's trial is scheduled to begin April 1.
The kill is the easiest part of the job. People kill one another every day. It takes no great effort to pull a trigger or plunge a knife. It is being able to do so in a manner that will not link yourself or your employer to the crime that makes you a professional.
--Excerpt from Hit Man
When Millie Horn's family filed suit against Paladin in December, the action sent Paladin and its defenders into a tizzy.
Lund, who seldom grants interviews, told the New York Times last month that his company "had nothing to do with inciting Mr. Perry to murder." He said, too, that the suit could bankrupt his company.
Lund initially looked to Baker and Hostetler for help with the suit. After all, the firm's Bruce Sanford had written a "friend of the court" brief that helped win a 1987 case for Soldier of Fortune that also involved a murder-for-hire scheme. But Baker and Hostetler declined to take the case, citing a "confR>lict of interest," the nature of which Sanford will not disclose. That led Paladin to Kelley.
Even though Baker and Hostetler isn't officially defending Paladin, the law firm has sent letters to various publishing groups in an attempt to raise funds and gather supporters to fight what the letter refers to as "a dangerous new lawsuit."
"It is critical that this new lawsuit be dismissed as a matter of law prior to trial," says the letter. "A trial of the case (and the possibility of an adverse verdict) can only spawn a multitude of derivative lawsuits and fuel the efforts to censor words and pictures that portray violence (whatever that may be)."
Plaintiffs' attorneys say, however, that they're not denying Paladin's right to publish, nor are they attempting to put the company out of business.
"We're not going after this book because of the opinion it expresses, because of its viewpoint or because it's offensive," says Rod Smolla, a professor of law at the College of William and Mary who has signed on to aid the plaintiffs. "It's not like people who prosecute flag burners or the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, who wish to bar information because they disagree with their message. Our point is that there is no message here other than informational training on the art of being a gun for hire. And that is not the kind of information that even triggers First Amendment protection."
The legal issues at stake in the case have attracted some of the country's most prominent free-speech attorneys. Smolla is a nationally known expert on constitutional law and the author of the book Free Speech in an Open Society. Sanford won acclaim when he successfully intervened in the 1987 Soldier of Fortune case, convincing an appeals court that the wording of a classified ad by a hired killer looking for "high-risk assignments" was "too ambiguous" for the magazine to be held liable for the murders the man subsequently committed. Howard Siegel, too, brings a high level of legal expertise to the case, having won a prR>ecedent-setting 1985 suit in which he claimed that the manufacturer of Saturday night specials was ultimately liable for the shooting of a grocery store clerk.